On 9/21/2011 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2011 7:08 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I consider an Observer moment to be the content of experience on
an ideal non-anthropomorphic observer that might obtain in a minimum
quantity of time, thus there is a maximum quantity of energy
involved, as per the energy-time uncertainty relation (which is
controversial as time is not an observable per se!). If we assume
that this observer is constrained by the laws of QM then its ability
to communicate its information/knowledge to another via emission
and/or absorption events is finite, it is "quantized", but its
observational content is only constrained by the Heisenberg
Uncertainty relation, a relation that does not put an upper bound on
any single observable, it only constrains simultaneous measurement of
pairs of canonically conjugate variables.
You seem to be invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty backwards. What is
delta-t*delta-E > hbar
not "<". So if you make delta-t small then you force delta-E >
hbar/delta-t. The HUP puts a *lower* bound on E. Or perhaps you are
saying that since and observer has only a finite amount of energy
there is a limit on how big delta-E can be and hence delta-t >
hbar/max[delta-E] and this provides a lower bound on the duration of
an Observer Moment. ? Of course as you note time is not an observable
in QM, but one can construct quantum mechanical clocks that provide a
local measure of time and the HUP applies to them.
Thank you for pointing this out. You are correct in that I was
considering that since an observer has only a finite amount of energy
... But the same situation would occur if the observer has only a finite
duration within which to make an observation...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at